So you if you end up downloading and reading the direct PDF link (the security through obscurity method is clearly failing here) I recommend paying what feels right to the author:
You can watch a pretty good summary of the book here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcS04BI2sbk
Feel free to ask me anything about how this actually works in practice - I know it's not obvious from just reading about it. I'll do my best though.
The other examples don't show a leader leaving and the company reverting to traditional top-down, as far as I can remember.
I believe the current examples show that even relatively flat orgs must revert back to a command and control structure once they get to any size, for instance Github, and Google retricting freedom (the 20% worktime perk being taken away). Orgs are based on a division of labor and that means roles and that means you play your position and that is less individual freedom.
Also, hierarchies don't exist just to 'tell people what to do' or divide people by status - bosses have authority to resolve conflicts among peers, and a final decider - as anyone who has witnessed the pitfalls of 'design by committee'.
Secondly, teal does not mean "flat hierarchy". The meaning is far more subtle than that. There is some impact on hierarchy but calling it "flat hierarchy" is very misleading - arguably that's more a green approach than teal - this is not surprising if you're operating in an orange environment at the moment, as people typically only see one level higher at best. Teal recognises that people are different and different people are likely to have greater or lesser accountabilities, impact, etc. What it rejects is the idea that anyone owns anyone else. We are all free agents operating in the organisation by choice. No one has the authority to order another person around. That is not a "flat hierarchy", nor is it a false declaration of equality between all - it is something else altogether.
Thirdly, yes, the traditional management hierarchy serves many, many functions, including conflict resolution and making decisions. Those processes have to be handled in some way. According to the RO book, most teal companies end up developing robust conflict management practices that teach people to resolve their own conflicts. You might think that doesn't work - that's because you're operating in a traditional hierarchical environment where indeed it can't work. GrantTree has been going down the teal route for over 2 years now and it's only this year that we started developing a proper conflict management process. As for the decision making, I cover that in this article, if you're curious: http://danieltenner.com/2014/11/06/the-advice-process-defini...
So, while your points are totally fair and skepticism is always a good practice, based on my direct experience and based on the dozen or so examples of companies doing this, in the book - I believe that this is not utopian at all. In fact, I am fairly convinced that just as 100 years ago the red and amber models were dominant, and today the orange model is dominant, give it another few decades (I reckon less than 3) and the green and teal models will start to dominate.